LALRINFELA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for habeas corpus which involves computation of the period of detention required to be set off under Section 428 of Cr. P.C., for short "the Code", when an accused is convicted in more than one case and the periods of detention during the investigation, inquiry and trial of one case overlaps the other.

(2.) THE petitioner was arrested on 6 -9 -80 in connection with G.R. Case No. 456/80. While in such detention as an Under Trial Prisoner he was formally arrested at different times in other cases, including G.R. Case No. 496 of 1980. In the last case, he was formally put under arrest on 22 -9 -80, though he was already in detention in connection with G.R. Case No. 456/80. On 12.1.1982 he was convicted in G.R. Case No. 496 of 1980 under Section 380 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 months and a fine of Rs. 200/ -, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 20 days and further sentenced to R.I. for 2 months said to be under Section 75 I.P.C. At the time of awarding the sentences the learned Magistrate allowed "set off" from 22 -9 -80, (the date on which he was formally arrested in the said case) till 12 -1 -81 (the date of his conviction). Thereafter, on 18 -2 -81 the accused was convicted in G.R. Case No. 456/80 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2 years. But the learned Magistrate did not allow any "set off" to the accused.

(3.) THE petitioner contends that in G.R. Case No. 456 of 1980 he was entitled to set off on and from the date of his arrest, that is, 6 -9 -80 to 18 -2 -81 as enjoined by Section 482 of the "the Code". Mr. M. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for Mizoram submits that he is entitled to set off from 6 -9 -80 to 21 -9 -80 and that far and no further. According to him the petitioner had been granted set off for the period commencing from 22 -9 -80 to 12 -1 -81 in G.R. Case No. 496 of 1980, and, as such he was not entitled to set off in respect of the same period for the second time in G.R. Case No. 456 of 1980. Counsel further submits that the petitioner upon his conviction in G.R. Case No. 496/80 ceased to be an Under Trial Prisoner, as he was a convict in G.R. Case No. 496/80, so he was disentitled to set off from 13.1.1981 to 18.2.1982 as Section 428 is applicable only to a UTP and not to a convict.